Translating President Obama's NSA Reform Promises Into Plain English

sandbagger writes "The cynics at the Register have picked apart Barack Obama's NSA reform promises. As to be expected, there's some good, some deliberate vagueness, talk of 'ticking bomb scenarios' and the politician's favourite 'promises to commit to future reforms'. Basically, it's a fig-leaf to kick the can down the road so the next president has to deal with it. He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?" They don't seem to me nearly cynical enough.

Comments

If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period".

Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.

Re:If you like it

[redemtionboy]

"If you like your privacy, you can keep it"

This is how power creeps. No one thinks they're evil. Each trust themselves to not abuse power. But even if this is going to a third party, it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. There are rules in place for a reason. This is asking to be abused.

Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary. It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument, but they aren't even doing that. It's disgusting.

Re:If you like it

[homey of my owney]

What is important here is the appearance of doing something... At least as far as ANY politician is concerned. The suckers buy into it.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

what's that? a continued attempt by the gop to dissuade younger voters (who will never vote for the gop) to not vote at all

this all got rolling last spring with the cavalcade of gop crises and culminated in the greenwald/snowden affair

trust this, the abuses are more evident on the goper watch, and snowden would be hustled off to a dark site under the previous administration

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

It's one thing if you were preventing terrorist attacks left and right and could make a utility argument

No, it's not. Freedom is more important than safety. The people who are focused on the question of whether or not these programs stop terrorists are missing the point entirely.

Re:If you like it

[Richy_T]

"If you like your unconstitutional spy agency, you can keep it"

I think that's the one promise he could actually keep.

Re:If you like it

[Richy_T]

More evident? Don't get me wrong, they could well be but historically, I don't think abuses of power have ever been more evident than under the current administration. Handbaskets come to mind.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

perhaps you missed it in all of the noise, but all of the audits of the NSA staff that showed abuse occurred before the the current administration put court oversight over the programs created under the patriot act

From a cause and effect standpoint, polling of young voters (including young republicans) last winter showed a complete dislike of the modern gop, only the constant string of overblown scandals has done anything to blunt the popularity of the Dem party

If the greenwald/snowden affair was not created by the gop, then they are the luckiest sobs on the planet

Re:If you like it

[MobSwatter]

Even worse, they still haven't proven or show any evidence that this is necessary.

Oh it's an absolutely necessary part of their corporate espionage cash cow.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not even sure what you're attempting here. Are you really advocating that everybody gives up their rights and goes to prison for their own safety?

If, on the off chance that you're slightly less retarded than that and are instead saying that because people convicted of a crime are sent to prison and that is directly against their personal freedom, you are still an idiot. I suggest you read the constitution sometime. It makes very clear you are not guaranteed rights when you are convicted of a crime.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd be ok with daily door to door home inspections because they might make you more safe?

I wear a harness at work because the danger is real and present. If I fall it will save my life. Now on the other hand the nsa spying on me will not make anyone safer because I have no intention of hurting anyone. They also have no evidence that I intend to hurt anyone. Now if they did have that evidence and used it to get a warrant then spy away.

people like you make me sick.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more than that -- Obama is basically telling the American public, "you're all too stupid to know what's best for you, you can express your outrage by signing an online petition and then you go right back to your Facebook and Twitter who are in fact the "third parties" collecting all this data. You're a bitch-ass chump, common American, and I'm going to patronize you for being the fat moron you are, and you're not gonna do a goddamn thing about it."

Then the common American hangs their head, chin cushioned by a comfortable layer of jowel fat, saying "Okay, I guess..." before waddling off to McDonald's to guzzle down a 64oz. soda and triple cheeseburger while using the wifi to bitch about it on Facebook and Twitter.

You disgust me, fellow Americans. You're a bunch of spineless, disgusting fat and vain blobs. You don't deserve to be free!

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:If you like it

[I'm New Around Here]

I prefer Arby's.

It's weird though. Their fries are shaped just like my new light bulbs.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

So you'd be ok with daily door to door home inspections because they might make you more safe?

The absolutist was above, if you'll note, who was saying that "Freedom is more important than safety" without consideration of circumstances.

I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.

As far as it goes, I'm ok with home inspections for safety, but I don't see why they need to be daily, unless things are very unsafe. I suppose for the elderly, or the mentally unsound, that might be the case, but for most people, I think that'd be an excessive cost for little gain.

I wear a harness at work because the danger is real and present. If I fall it will save my life.

Which means, unlike the person above, you can recognize that there are times where safety is more important than freedom.

Now on the other hand the nsa spying on me will not make anyone safer because I have no intention of hurting anyone. They also have no evidence that I intend to hurt anyone. Now if they did have that evidence and used it to get a warrant then spy away.

people like you make me sick.

Why? Because you see me incorrectly as blindly supporting all NSA surveillance, and want to support that, whereas I see myself as opposing the absolutist position that acts as if safety was never more important than freedom?

That's because you have a false image of me.

Now it's possible I have a false image of YumoolaJohn, but if so, I'd like to see him address that, preferably in a non-hostile and belligerent manner.

Or can you do that, can you acknowledge that your representation of me, may not be accurate, and that you are getting yourself sick because of your own manufactured image of me? You're not as venomous as the previous reply, so I do hold out hope for that possibility from you.

Next time though, do try to inquire more, and judge less.

Re:If you like it

[davester666]

This 'data will be held by third parties' thing is just about changing who pays for data storage.

Instead of giving tax money to the NSA to build large data warehouses, and hacking American companies to get the data, the American companies will be required to store ALL the data [data + metadata] indefinitely, at their own expense [which means consumers have to directly pay for it] and the NSA/FBI/DHS have to pay to access it [fee's will be approximately 98% profit].

This way, the NSA can focus their budget on hacking companies and gov'ts outside the US. So effectively, this actually increases how much data will be available to the gov't, because it will be 'everything the company gathers about you' instead of just what the NSA could afford to track/store.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your opinions are not facts and vary depending on person. Nobody cares if you're willing to give up your own freedoms; just don't demand to have ours taken away as well.

And yes, I do say that everybody who violates my safety should be put in prison.

Well, I find your support of tyranny to not be in my own personal best interests of safety. Perhaps you should be sent to prison?
I'm not even going to point out that if someone is actually doing something that could potentially cause you bodily harm is already breaking the law.

Besides, why are you talking about the Constitution?

Gee, I don't know. It's almost like that's one of the founding ideas of the constitution, right? How crazy is that?!

Of course, you were only using that reference to try to dismiss me, so I really don't care what you have to say anyway.

No, you don't care what anybody that has a differing opinion than your own has to say. You're spouting off dangerous ideas then crying that nobody wants to play your game.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

He's said some things that turned out wrong, and some things that turned out correct. If anything a person ever said wrong makes them into a liar, then you must be a liar as well since "what he says means nothing" is not entirely true. Where does it end?

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?

That's a personal decision. I say you'd be dumb not too 99% of the time, though.

But this has nothing to do with fundamental liberties.

I was replying to them, with my own remarks, that did not express any particular sentiment or position, except disagreeing with what I perceived them as saying an absolutist position.

So, in other words, you completely disregarded the context this was said in. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not water the issue down with car analogies.
Without freedom you do not get the choice to even think about safety.

Re:If you like it

[Bite The Pillow]

President cannot write laws. Any promise from the executive branch about the legislative is not credible. Not necessarily a lie, but a promise that cannot be kept. Lower taxes, lower crime, most of the promises of a gubernatorial or presidential candidate simply cannot be backed up.
Does this make it a lie? Surely it is not ignorance.
If the audience should know better, can it feel lied to?

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

trust this, the abuses are more evident on the goper watch, and snowden would be hustled off to a dark site under the previous administration

"Our guy isn't quite as bad as the other guy" doesn't give comfort to anyone with a brain. Bush, Obama, and everyone who voted for this sort of thing are scum. Whether or not some of them are less scummy is 100% irrelevant.

perhaps you missed it in all of the noise, but all of the audits of the NSA staff that showed abuse occurred before the the current administration put court oversight over the programs created under the patriot act

Collecting this information is an abusing in and of itself. And the court oversight is nothing more than rubberstamping.

Re:If you like it

[reboot246]

In the case of Arby's fries, the light bulbs taste better.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a personal decision. I say you'd be dumb not too 99% of the time, though.

But this has nothing to do with fundamental liberties.

''

Indeed, it isn't exactly pertinent, but did you keep reading my words, or did you fail to see:

"Ok, so you don't like that way of analogy, fine, let's consider putting people in prison. Why do we do this? Isn't that impairing their freedom? How dare we!"

So, in other words, you completely disregarded the context this was said in. Don't blame me for your own stupidity.

Ah snap dude, if only you hadn't failed to reply to the entirety of my own words, and jumped out of context yourself.

I've got to blame you for that. And the hypocrisy that resulted from you choosing this response.

I'm not saying you're stupid, you just lack integrity.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Indeed, it isn't exactly pertinent, but did you keep reading my words, or did you fail to see:

I did keep reading your words. They're not on-topic. Consider the context of where I posted that; this is an article that relates to the NSA, and I responded to someone else saying that it would be less wrong if they were violating our rights in a way that kept us safe. I do not believe your reply was relevant.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's still a violation of the 4th amendment. "

No it's not. The courts have ruled for decades that this sort of activity is not unconstitutional. I might add that these are the same courts whose authority to make such rulings is also defined in the constitution.

Re:If you like it

[ganjadude]

before waddling off to McDonald's to guzzle down a 64oz. soda

that is, as long as he is not in NYC

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh. The people that claim that is a lie are defending substandard plans. Of course they had to come to an end with the changes that now require more sensible coverage.

Plus, they're ignoring the "if you like" part. No one likes paying for insurance that doesn't provide reasonable coverage. The government is doing them a favor.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

No it's not. The courts have ruled for decades that this sort of activity is not unconstitutional.

What difference does that make, drone? Courts can be wrong. In fact, the supreme court overruled itself on a number of occasions, so your line of thinking (that the courts are automatically right) is paradoxical at best.

You'd think that in a place that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't see people blindly worshiping authority figures.

I might add that these are the same courts whose authority to make such rulings is also defined in the constitution.

Those judges merely have power that others do not. Their opinions, however, are as 'correct' as anyone else's. And that's all they are: mere opinions.

So your assertion that this does not violate the constitution because some judges supposedly said it doesn't is simply absurd, frightening, and sad.

Re:If you like it

[ganjadude]

to put it another way "the one guy cut off my arm, but the new guy only gut off my finger so he is better"

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the rest of the quote about keeping your doctor. I have some serious health problems, and as of Jan 1 none of the six doctors I've seen the past two years accept my insurance. That is a bigger problem than the statement that you GOPpers attack. It doesn't really matter what insurance company you have. The doctors you see are much more important than which company pays the bill. If you people were logical, you'd attack that part of the promise instead of the part that just doesn't matter.

As an example, I used to walk to my oncologist. Now the closest one that accepts my insurance is an almost three hour round-trip bus ride. If you CONservatives really cared about people, that is the argument you would make. Instead, you defend substandard insurance plans that were made illegal. I haven't heard a single educated person complain about losing their health insurance.

Re:If you like it

[DrJimbo]

so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?

Saying freedom is more important than safety does not imply that safety is unimportant just like Saying Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is taller than Shaquille O'Neal does imply Shaq is not tall.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I did keep reading your words.

Yet you neither quoted, nor responded to what I see as the most important part of them. So what am I to think, except you ignored them, which combined with your own remarks complaining about me not seeing context makes for a good bit of hypocrisy on your part.

They're not on-topic. Consider the context of where I posted that; this is an article that relates to the NSA, and I responded to someone else saying that it would be less wrong if they were violating our rights in a way that kept us safe. I do not believe your reply was relevant.

I do believe they are on-topic, namely the topic of "Freedom is more important than safety." which is your own chosen sentiment, and lacked any particular specification or limitation to it, and seems to be a foundational principle of yours. I believe you made a statement that needed to be addressed, because of what it represents, and that is far more than any discussion simply about the NSA and its actions.

Are you now clarifying your words to say that you didn't mean for such a bold and all-encompassing claim to define your remarks? I don't consider limiting the discussion to the NSA programs to be a good idea, any more than I do discussing the provisions of the US Constitution to be a good idea. It just gets things going in the wrong direction. But if you are doing so, and I do respect your freedom to choose that, I think you might consider leaving such absolutist statements out in the future.

That way your own remarks may be less likely to generate replies you don't consider relevant, and you won't have to clarify yourself. At the least, some qualification to "Freedom is more important than safety." would be important.

How exactly did you mean that to be taken? Why did you include it, if not to define your remarks, and why not consider the ramifications of it?

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the same argument that violent people make to try to justify gun ownership. Obviously, they are wrong, and you are also wrong. What good is the Bill of Rights if you can take those rights if one of those gun owners can take all of those rights from us in an instant with a gun?

Re:If you like it

[Kohath]

What's this bullshit about caring about people? We want the government to stop bullying everyone and controlling everything. Then you can choose your own insurance coverage and/or go to whatever doctor you choose. You don't need a government overseer to care about you. Be a free, independent person, make your own choices, and care for/about yourself.

Re:If you like it

[Bartles]

McDonald's doesn't sell 64oz soda's and triple cheeseburgers.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Wow! Enough of this garbage; it's an eyesore. You're ignoring context and being pedantic for the sake of it. Vanish, I say.

I don't consider limiting the discussion to the NSA programs to be a good idea

Perhaps you should pay attention to what the article is about.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's more like saying Kareem is taller than Shaq, so Shaq is of less value to the team than Kareem, simply because of height. Thus we never ever let Shaq off the bench. The more important part is the key to recognizing the sentiment, as in the comparative to freedom versus safety.

(Note, I'm not big on basketball, so I don't even know if your contention that Kareem is taller than Shaq is true.)

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

That's the same argument that violent people make to try to justify gun ownership.

And they are right. Freedom is more important than safety. I don't believe we should be punishing everyone merely because some people abuse guns.

What good is the Bill of Rights if you can take those rights if one of those gun owners can take all of those rights from us in an instant with a gun?

Have some principles, please; you're living in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave."

Some criminal could randomly kill you, but what does that have to do with the government violating everyone's rights? You act as if we must sacrifice all of our rights for safety.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not. The courts have ruled for decades that this sort of activity is not unconstitutional.

What difference does that make, drone? Courts can be wrong. In fact, the supreme court overruled itself on a number of occasions, so your line of thinking (that the courts are automatically right) is paradoxical at best.

You'd think that in a place that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," you wouldn't see people blindly worshiping authority figures.

I might add that these are the same courts whose authority to make such rulings is also defined in the constitution.

Those judges merely have power that others do not. Their opinions, however, are as 'correct' as anyone else's. And that's all they are: mere opinions.

So your assertion that this does not violate the constitution because some judges supposedly said it doesn't is simply absurd, frightening, and sad.

That leads us to other mechanisms the constitution defines when there are disagreements with the courts interpretation of law: congress can pass constitutional amendments if there is disagreement or other legislation. Like many slashdotters, you claim to care so much about the constitution but know so little about it.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like your plan ... well, it's a substandard plan, so go fuck yourself. We'll tell you what's good for you.

Re:If you like it

[Ksevio]

"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period". Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.

Well in that case, there were some things that needed clarification. For one, the people without actual heatlhcare plans - the guys who payed their dealer in monthly installments weren't eligible to keep their plans. But the biggest issues was, the government doesn't actually control private enterprise, so they found a loophole where they could switch people off the plans they had before the cutoff (of the plans they could keep) to a brand new one with the same benefits. Then when the law came into effect the insurance companies said "oh darn, your cheap plan doesn't meet the minimum requirements, and it's too new so you can't keep it - Obama made us cancel it".

If Obama was a dictator, then he could say things about the future, but since corporations don't listen to the president, and Congress certainly isn't going to do exactly what he wants, it means the statements are what he hopes to happen - he doesn't have a crystal ball.

The president especially should be forward thinking in government - and we want him to share those thoughts with us. Since he's actually in charge of running a lot of the government, it might be a good idea to listen to him. Some speeches like this NSA one are full of weasel words, but since he's stating what the policy is going to be (at least officially), it's worth figuring out what he's saying.

Re:If you like it

[drooling-dog]

> "If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it, period".

To be fair, it was the insurance companies that cancelled substandard policies rather than bring them up to minimum standards. Should he have realized this would happen and refrained from making that statement? Maybe so. He owned up to it publicly, which is more than I can recall ever happening in the previous regime.

More on-topic, though, he's as much a part of the power structure as anyone else. I'm sure the NSA has made clear to him and the consequences of trying to rein them in.

Re:If you like it

[Livius]

If people have freedom of expression, they can disagree how freedom and security should be prioritized.

But when you get neither out of the system, then it is unambiguously a failure. (Unambiguously unless one side is arguing in bad faith.)

Re:If you like it

[Curunir_wolf]

I'm pointing out that "Freedom is more important than safety" is not true

Execept you can't, because it's not. Your assertion about prison isn't an exception - it bears out the rule. You see, your freedom isn't affected - it's not you being put in prison.

But, if you really think safety is more important, then you can certainly get a cell there fairly easily. You will be safe, clothed, housed, and fed the rest of your life. So, you should go to prison.

Re:If you like it

[Culture20]

Court willfully misinterprets meaning of a constitutional amendment. Solution: make a constitutional amendment. What ensures it is interpreted correctly?

Re:If you like it

[joe_frisch]

While I completely agree with you, it is not at all clear that the voting public in the US agrees. They may be quite happy to trade freedom for security, and much as I disagree with the majority opinion, I don't have a better idea than democracy for how things should be run.

I can however continue to believe that the majority is mis-guided, and will some day come to deeply regret this choice.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

You have been weighed by the obamacare death panel and have been found wanting. Obama grows powerful from feeding on your want.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Like many slashdotters, you claim to care so much about the constitution but know so little about it.

I'm not sure how you managed to interpret my comment in such a way that it became apparent to you that I did not know it was possible to amend the constitution, but your interpretation is absurd. Essentially, all I said was that judges' opinions are not automatically correct and can be challenged. Your reply doesn't address what I said.

Plus, what the other guy said.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Unfortunately, even if they someday regret it, their future generations will forget all about their suffering and make the exact same mistakes.

Re:If you like it

[MrKaos]

I'll give you 50 bonus points for not quoting Franklin. I'll also subtract 100 points because you're an idiot.

Total points: -50

What about Kennedy? "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable"

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Most politicians are liars. They get in office based on lies. What's your point?

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an utter waste of money is what it is. but, hey, they need to find some excuse to take money from you and transfer it to them without them having to actually do any productive work for it. As others have pointed out, they need to give people the appearance that they are doing something to earn your money when in fact they are merely stealing your taxpayer money like thieves.

Re:If you like it

[MobSwatter]

I think it will be lackluster for them in the end run, corporate espionage data ages quickly. Do you think they will ever give it up? They have already infiltrated every security intended to keep it safe anyway so they will no doubt get it when they want it and will just 'off the books' grab what they want without having a search index. Lackluster meaning a less profitable model.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

This, and then some.

Especially after you factor in all the campaign promises he lied about. ( Guantanamo, Transparency, etc )

Anyone who believes a single syllable he utters these days is a complete fool. ( Political tip: This is how credibilty works. Once you lie to us, forever will it haunt you. Regardless of the truthfulness of anything you may say later on down the road. )

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I know this was intended to be trollish and inflammatory, but unfortunately the fundamental premise is correct. The American people simply don't take enough interest in their government, nor are they willing to get off their ass to force change when things start getting bad. It doesn't speak well for the future, because things ARE going to get worse, and the government will take every last bit of power the people allow them too.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem is that you underestimate the desire of some people to do harm to others to gain power and pleasure for themselves. I suggest you research Stalin, Mao, hitler, Mussolini, Rwanda, and others before you agree to any home inspections.

Re: If you like it

[s.petry]

You are anonymous, so stating something like "if you'll note, who was saying that" is not very helpful. If you wish to have progressive dialogue make an account and log in.

It's your right not to do so, but remember that when a conversation exists among at least 2 anonymous people it's impossible to tell who said what. Also impossible to tell if a 3rd, 4th, or Nth anonymous person jumped into the conversation.

Re:If you like it

[s.petry]

Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?

False analogy. In a survival situation, you need water before food. That does not mean that you never eat, and making such an implication is simply asinine.

Ok, so you don't like that way of analogy, fine, let's consider putting people in prison. Why do we do this? Isn't that impairing their freedom? How dare we!

Another false analogy, and horrible logic. Are you really trying to imply that if you believe in Natural Law, the US Constitution, or personal freedom that there can be no accountability for actions, no justice system, or that having a justice system makes freedom impossible? This is another asinine implication, no matter how it's viewed.

There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.

Re:If you like it

[redemtionboy]

Oh, I wasn't saying that I agreed with a utility argument. I'm just saying that it is a common one made, but it's one that doesn't even hold ground here as there is no evidence that it HAS prevented an attack. So there isn't even the utility ground to stand on. Destroying the arguments that your opponent presents is the most effective way to win a debate. If our options are to have a world with more freedom or a world with less freedom with no additional benefit to it, what do you think wins in that situation in the minds of most people?

Re:If you like it

[AntiSol]

Oh... my... god... That's so retarded that reading it made me a little but stupider. You owe me 5 IQ points, and I want them back. My brain hurts.

Please go learn your englishes and gramatticals to make sure that you understand the statement, then please go learn about logic so that you understand its implications. It'll help you a lot!

His statement was "Freedom is more important than safety". This does not make any implications about how important safety is, except that it's less important than freedom. The statement contains no other information and implies no other context. It's a very simple, straightforward, and concise statement, which also happens to be true.
You are either a complete idiot or completely full of shit to say that it implies anything about the value of safety. If he'd said something like "Freedom is more important than safety and nobody cares about safety" then you might have a point and not look like a complete fuckwit. But that's not what he said, so you do, and my brain hurts.

Now please, for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, do as you've been told and vanish, satisfied in the fact that you've caused me a small amount of permanent brain damage.

Re:If you like it

[AntiSol]

I don't have a better idea than democracy for how things should be run.

Agreed.

I've been looking for a democratic country to move to, but I can't think of any...

Re:If you like it

[AntiSol]

Or: "chlamydia - the best of the venereal diseases!"

Re: If you like it

[MidnightBrewer]

You blame him for the health insurance providers taking the opportunity to use him as a whipping boy and take out their aggravation that their golden goose isn't looking too healthy?

In other news, Reagan said that trickle-down economics would work, and George W. showed up on an aircraft carrier claiming victory over a war that wasn't over yet, which we started because of falsified intel. Clinton said he didn't have sex with that woman, either.

Re:If you like it

[SleazyRidr]

From your comment, I'm not entirely convinced that you had 5 IQ points to start with...

YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide. The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness. Trying to change what was said won't work, making stupid comparisons about baseball players won't work. Moving on and recognizing that there's more than one side to this issue is what we need.

Re:If you like it

[SleazyRidr]

There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.

I agree entirely. Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous, there is no such thing as "natural law", and freedoms must be abridged to have a functional justice system.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

YumoolaJohn claimed that "Freedom is more important than safety", and implied that this phrase should make everyone instantly agree that the freedoms removed by the NSA are not acceptable, no matter how much safety they can provide.

Not everyone, but everyone with a brain.

The AC then made the counter point that this is absurd, because we sacrifice freedom for safety every time we get in a car by wearing a safety harness.

The AC is an idiot. Deciding to wear a safety harness in a car has nothing to do with the fundamental freedoms the NSA is violating. And again, what freedoms are violating when you yourself decide to wear a safety harness, and how is this even remotely similar to the government violating your freedoms?

Moving on and recognizing that there's more than one side to this issue is what we need.

There is more than one side to this issue. Everyone who's paying attention knows it. The problem is, the other side doesn't promote freedom, so they should be ridiculed.

Re:If you like it

[YumoolaJohn]

Acting as though a 200 year old document is sacrosanct is ridiculous

The 200 year old document you speak of is not really sacrosanct; it can, after all, be amended. If you don't like it, move to amend it. And this is the same 200 year old document that our elected officials swear to uphold, even to this day. It's also the very reason the government has any legitimacy at all.

What exactly were you intending by saying such a pointless thing about the constitution?

Re:If you like it

[Zero__Kelvin]

" They may be quite happy to trade freedom for security, and much as I disagree with the majority opinion, I don't have a better idea than democracy for how things should be run."

Well then I guess it is a good thing that the US is not a democracy. I don't know why people keep spreading that myth. Your mistake is thinking that the "people" have a right to do whatever they want as long as the majority agrees. The typical ignorant citizen has every right to throw their own freedoms out the window. Under no circumstances, no matter how many times they take a vote, will they have the right to ignore the fundamental principles upon which the US was founded. The fact that the President and almost all politicians currently are doing exactly that, and that the SCOTUS is completely unwilling to uphold the most important laws of "Our Land", in no way makes it legal or acceptable.

Re:If you like it

[TangoMargarine]

"100 points from Gryffindor!"
"But Snape, I was just walking down the hall minding my own business..."
"Another 100 points from Gryffindor for arguing!"

Re:If you like it

[SleazyRidr]

A couple of well placed amendments would certainly make the constitution a lot more bearable as a national model.

If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what I meant in such a simple sentence, then I'm quite certain you won't understand the constitution either. I am quite interested in what you think the government having "legitimacy" means, though.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I believe being in a prison cell would not be as safe as you think.

There's a reason why violence in the corrections system is a commonly recognized problems, though actually addressing it seems to be dismissed. Much easier to use it as a joke.

But no, my freedom is circumscribed by the possibility of being put in prison, the same as yours, and everybody else's, in the name of safety.

That's why it actually shows why the "Freedom is more important than safety" assertion is not true. Sometimes safety is greater than freedom. Unless, of course, you totally disagree with the concept of incarceration, which from your flippant remark regarding sending me to prison, I don't find likely. Still, if you do believe that, feel free to state it, like the above grand-parent, who made the blanket assertion regarding freedom, without apparently considering the ramifications.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of well placed amendments would certainly make the constitution a lot more bearable as a national model.

Yes. The people need more protection from the government than they have now. The fourth amendment does not go far enough, for instance.

If your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand what I meant in such a simple sentence

You made no mention of such a thing.

I am quite interested in what you think the government having "legitimacy" means, though.

As in, why it has any power at all. Why it's more than just a group of thugs. Why it has the power to represent the people.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow! Enough of this garbage; it's an eyesore. You're ignoring context and being pedantic for the sake of it. Vanish, I say.

Seems to me you are being evasive and ignoring the content of your own words, and the odor of garbage comes from your side of things.

But I've tried to be polite to you anyway.

Perhaps you should pay attention to what the article is about.

Perhaps you should pay more attention to what your own words are saying.

You're the one who decided to make a far more expansive and absolutist statement as part of your response, as I said, perhaps next time you could consider leaving such phrasing out, try to worry about what you're saying when you make such statements, rather than complaining about others reading them as meaningful and important.

I've even given you the opportunity to clarify your words with no particular opprobrium on my part, I can't say the same about you though, you seem to be quite hostile to what I said, as if you were aggrieved that anybody could take your words as being problematic.

Or can you answer my questions:

How exactly did you mean that to be taken? Why did you include it, if not to define the foundation of your remarks, and why not consider the ramifications of it?

What is it if not the foundation principle to your opposition? Why is addressing it so offensive to you? Or am I wrong in my reading that you consider it wrong for any freedom to be sacrificed for safety? If so, how did you mean it?

Or you can go on complaining that you're being taken out of context, however reading your other posts, I don't feel that's the case at all, you're not limiting yourself to such a narrow-discussion at all, but are bringing it up elsewhere without protest.

At that point, it's back to the integrity problem I already mentioned.

Re:If you like it

[Richy_T]

It's not just the NSA. IRS has also shown up on the abuse radar recently.

Re:If you like it

[MooseMiester]

Kudos to you, Sir, as you are stating the truth here. Might I add:

THIS is the year/summer of RECOVERY

I'm concerned about income inequality (Which, under his administration, has gotten much, much worse)

The attack in Benghazi was the result of a spontaneous demonstration caused by a video.

I'm concerned about outsourcing (Which his administration has done on project after project)

So many more...

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

The AC, as you were specifically informed, also made note of the inadequacy of that particular analogy in the very same post you're complaining about. (Though perhaps you may wish to know that there are government laws requiring the use of that safety harness under penalty of coercion that can include imprisonment, if you're not aware, so the distinction you're making is not as clear as you think).

And it was also pointed out to you how you overlooked that particular part of the reply in your own response.

Yet you seem to wish to continue in your hypocrisy, by complaining about something that was specifically noted in the very same posting.

I'm sorry, YumoolaJohn, but you just keep destroying your own integrity here. I'm not going to ridicule you for that, though, I'm just going to be disdainful about it.

You're just choosing to be not responsible with your freedom of speech.

Re:If you like it

[MooseMiester]

It's one thing to be proven wrong by history, it's another thing altogether to lie and know you are lying, telling the lie in order to get more power and money, This has been the case over and over with the current administration.

The left spent eight years telling us what evil liars the Rethignicans were about everything - and then when they got back in power they set new lows for lying..

It's very sad me personally, an ex-Democrat who was driven away by the excessive lust for power and greed demonstrated by the party.

Re:If you like it

[MooseMiester]

But these substandard plans have been put back into place by the Obama Administration - by Imperial Decree. Your statement makes no sense.

For me personally, I got a 40% rate increase, higher deductibles, lower copays and no change in coverage whatsoever.

Re:If you like it

[MooseMiester]

NONSENSE! The insurance companies were REQUIRED to cancel the plans, and the Administration knew about this TWO YEARS become the ACA went into effect.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Uruguay?

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Got to run to buy some Amazon EC2, EMC, Rackspace shares....

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, so you never wear a safety harness, because your freedom is more important than your safety?

False analogy. In a survival situation, you need water before food. That does not mean that you never eat, and making such an implication is simply asinine.

Yes, your analogy is rather false, because you seem to fail to note how freedom in this case is deliberately contrasted with security. The one is taken from the other.

Is it that hard to recognize? Apparently so.

Another false analogy, and horrible logic.

Another assertion like this doesn't make it true.

Are you really trying to imply that if you believe in Natural Law, the US Constitution, or personal freedom that there can be no accountability for actions, no justice system, or that having a justice system makes freedom impossible? This is another asinine implication, no matter how it's viewed.

There is no possible way to debate anyone with logic this horribly broken. Yes, that is correct. It's impossible to debate someone that uses this level of irrationality.

Yes, there's no way to discuss things with somebody who has such horribly broken logic, I'm glad you can admit it. You've jumped to a conclusion that is immediately dismissive, without even attempting to understand the other side.

If Yumoolajohn didn't mean that freedom should never be traded for security, then he only had to clarify his words. No malice would have been taken. It would actually have looked better for him, instead we get offended replies, that only serve to show a high degree of belligerence, which accomplishes less than you realize.

The contrast is rather clear.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the safety harness is a good analogy.

Depending upon the circumstances, it may offer a sense of safety but actually condemn you to death - consider: if climbing a pole of some sort or working on a rooftop, then in the event of a fall the harness and screamer in conjunction with a helmet will likely save your life- assuming you are released from it before you die of thrombosis caused by the sudden deceleration on the point loads behind your thighs - and this death occurs in minutes not hours.

If you were working on a MEWP (cherry picker) on the other hand, you probably need the harness and lanyard for the sake of your employers' legal compliance - but if the machine collapses due to bad footing (most common accident scenario) then you risk being trapped underneath a huge lump of metal hitting the ground hard instead of being thrown clear - and thus trade certain death for an uncertain possibility of escape (admittedly with a high likelihood of injuries)

It just goes to show. Even simplistic scenarios like wearing prescribed safety equipment doesn't even promise safety - so why should u believe a secretive organisation with no regard for the Law, Constitution or Due Process would be better?

I would like to keep my rights, Thankyou.

Re:If you like it

[Curunir_wolf]

So... you support slavery? Because slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants are today. So you think slavery was better, apparently.

Liberty or Death, mofo, Liberty or Death.

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's your right to use an account if you prefer, but I don't feel it's hard to recognize a specific quote in this particular threaded conversation.

Re:If you like it

[iMactheKnife]

So... you support slavery? Because slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants are today. So you think slavery was better, apparently.

Liberty or Death, mofo, Liberty or Death.

You don't know much about slavery, either.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't know much about slavery, either.

I was a slave, you insensitive clod!

Re: If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem seems to be that you overestimate the desire of people to harm others.

So far as I can tell, having a inspector for my home hasn't caused any acts of genocide.

I wonder why.

Apparently the slippery slope you fear is very gradual.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, you think slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants?

You must be as confused about that as you are about prisons then. Slavery was very unsafe and dangerous.

That said, there are many people who do choose secure and regular employment that does impair their freedom over striking out on their own.

Perhaps if you refrained from the overblown rhetoric that relies on emotional reactions rather than thoughtful consideration, you might be able to give some thought as to that.

Re:If you like it

[Curunir_wolf]

Really, you think slaves were much safer than their inner-city descendants?

Sorry to have to slap you in the face with reality, but yes they were. Over 8,000 blacks are killed (mostly by other blacks) every year, based on 2005 statistics. That's 1/2 of all victims of homicide, even though they are only 13% of the population. By contrast, there were only an estimated 2, 800 slaves killed during the entire century from 1750 to 1850, or about 280 per year. The horrors of the slave trade in Africa, where 50% of slaves died, and shipping and trading slaves, which often only 40 - 50% survived, not withstanding, the fact is that being a slave in a southern plantation of the US is MUCH safer than being an African-American living in American cities today.

Sorry you don't like this fact. But you seem to prefer safety to the current situation. So, you support slavery. It's your position. Own it.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be basketball.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because its the president's fault that insurance companies are the kind of scum that give their employees bonuses for denying people coverage and abruptly canceling their plans entirely.

Re:If you like it

[SleazyRidr]

Baseball players won't work either.

Re:If you like it

[AntiSol]

That's all very interesting and I'm really happy for you that you're able to follow a conversation and then summarise it, but everything you said is totally irrelevant to the point I was making. In fact, it doesn't even address my statement except to insult me. Those are some magnificent debating skills you have there - are you planning on going into politics one day?

How does any of that make the "freedom is more important than safety" quote imply that safety is not important? Please provide an explanation of how the phrase "freedom is more important than safety" indicates an absolute value for safety. Alternatively, you could just shut the hell up - that might prevent you from looking any stupider.

Now you owe me 2 IQ points in addition the AC's 5, and I'm going to stop reading this thread before I'm dragged even further down to your level of intelligence - another 200 or so posts like this and I'll be as dumb as you.

Re:If you like it

[SleazyRidr]

YumoolaJohn implied that when he said that even if the NSA wiretaps were preventing terrorism they would still be unacceptable. I would offer you 2 IQ points, but I'm sure you wouldn't know what to do with them.

Re:If you like it

[Anonymous Coward]

Then by all means, take the first step towards doing a goddamn thing about it. I'll be right behind you. ...
Yeah I didn't think so.

Everybody Knows

[rotorbudd]

He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?"

Google?

Re:Everybody Knows

[Anonymous Coward]

or NSA subsidiary

Re:Everybody Knows

[Atomic Fro]

Dear God, thats the worst thing he could do. I trust the NSA more with the data than spreading it around to corporations for "safe keeping." The problem is the data exists / has been collected in the first place. If anything, his suggestion is an insult.

Re:Everybody Knows

[Richy_T]

Arguably corporations already have this data so all you need to do is have a law that mandates a retention policy. I still don't like it but it's definitely an improvement (of miniscule proportions)

Re:Everybody Knows

[Anonymous Coward]

Coastguard?

Re:Everybody Knows

[russotto]

He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?

The NSA under a different name, I would expect.

Re:Everybody Knows

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that google was an NSA subsidiary

Besides the phone meta-data is already the property of the private phone companies ( Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 744 (1979)) , that is why gathering pen register information does not require a warrant

Re:Everybody Knows

[CanadianMacFan]

CGI? We can only hope because they will screw the project up so bad that it will never see the light of day.

Re:Everybody Knows

[PPH]

Probably the same third party I have to deal with whenever I have a billing/tech support issue. Some contractor in India.

Since they are already beyond the reach of meager US data protection and privacy laws, it will be trivial for the NSA/FBI/CIA to just buy back (for a modest fee) any metadata that they want. The telecoms//ISPs are already in the business of reselling our* metadata to third parties. Anyone who wants a dump of anything from your companies customer lists to any number that regularly calls in to certain exchanges in Langley, Virginia can buy that on the open market already. What's to stop the NSA?

* Not really 'our' data anymore. Courts have already ruled on the side of telecoms that billing metadata is the property of the telecoms and preventing their sharing with partners or resale is a violation of their free speech rights.

Re:Everybody Knows

[Anonymous Coward]

One side effect of the speech is that the NSA declassified more documents yesterday. Included is the original "metadata" orders from the FISA court. Not sure if this is a comprehensive list, but there is enough in there about domestic data collection.
I was under the impression that this data is collected and retained forever, but it seems the order requires this data to be deleted after five years. It also says what metadata is collected, and I am not sure if any single corporate entity has this data. For example, if a Verizon user calls a T-Mobile customer, both records are collected and matched. Similarly, device IDs are collected, not just numbers. So pre-paid SIMs are tracked even if the user switches carriers (ie, move from TracFone to T-Mobile to AT&T etc. - all uses of the phone can be identified as a single device). The orders (that I read) are unclear on whether the geographical location is tracked.

Re:Everybody Knows

[DanielRavenNest]

It will be manages by a collaboration of Target, Evernote, and Adobe.

Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think this "third party", whoever it is, won't become a giant "Target" (pun intended) for data hackers? At least the NSA's data centers are on military bases, and they have half a clue about security, Snowden notwithstanding.

Re:Everybody Knows

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they need a law to make it illegal for the corporations to collect and retain this data without a court order. If Europe comes out with a search engine which does not track this data which works comparable to Google, then I will drop Google in a heartbeat.

Translating Obama's NSA Promises to TL;DR

[keyslemur]

Lol, no.

Plain enough.

[rmdingler]

Will this POTUS stop surveillance of citizens?

Nope.

Re:Plain enough.

[BrookHarty]

Bullshit. Potus has WAY more power than you think. He can ask the Justice department to investigate why the judges only rubber stamp, he can use presidential orders to direct departments or how to interpretation the law, he can fire US attorneys, he has his cabinet members he can fire, he could even fire the the head of the CIA/FBI and Homeland security for misconduct by asking the AG to fire them, and so much more powers.

Re:Plain enough.

[dreamchaser]

He has a lot of control over what the NSA and other agencies do though. As President he have a great deal of influence and control because the Administration, you know, administers those agencies, appoints the people who lead them, etc.

Re:Plain enough.

[Kohath]

He could end the secrecy. The President can de-classify anything, anytime he wants.

Re: Plain enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

He could totally defund the NSA and watch it go full rogue over night.

Re:Plain enough.

[XxtraLarGe]

Potus has WAY more power than you think. He can ask the Justice department to investigate why the judges only rubber stamp, he can use presidential orders to direct departments or how to interpretation the law, he can fire US attorneys, he has his cabinet members he can fire, he could even fire the the head of the CIA/FBI and Homeland security for misconduct by asking the AG to fire them, and so much more powers.

Can you point to a few instances where he's done any of these things?

Re:Plain enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you point to a few instances where he's done any of these things?

Are you really asking that?
Almost every new administration begins with the President doing exactly that: replacing the cabinet and heads of departments.
Or do you think that Eric Holder was George Bush's man?
James Clapper's predecessor, Dennis Blair was fired by President Obama.
Stephen Miller (IRS Commissioner) fired by President Obama
BTW, Most of us count forced-to-resign as a firing.

Re:Plain enough.

[Anonymous Coward]

Point to an example where *any* POTUS has done any of these things.

Re:Plain enough.

[MooseMiester]

Making an enemies list before the election and using the full power of the government to go after those enemies.

We impeached Nixon for far, far less.

Re:Plain enough.

[chiefmojorising]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

Get a warrant

[EmperorOfCanada]

Quite simply there needs to be two things. One is get a warrant, and these warrants need go public in short order. Public with no redactions. My guess is that 99% of redactions are not to protect sources and whatnot but to avoid embarrassment.

Also these warrants need to go before real judges. If they can't trust the judges then how can they trust anyone?

Re:Get a warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite simply there needs to be two things. One is get a warrant, and these warrants need go public in short order. Public with no redactions. My guess is that 99% of redactions are not to protect sources and whatnot but to avoid embarrassment.

Also these warrants need to go before real judges. If they can't trust the judges then how can they trust anyone?

I will also add that in cases of immediate threats it would ok to do a search as long as a 'retroactive warrant' is submitted within 5 days of the search and the reasoning of immediate threat is clearly specified. These would be released to the public unredacted within 30 days. If this does not sound reasonable then it clearly wasn't an immediate threat.

Re:Get a warrant

[YumoolaJohn]

I will also add that in cases of immediate threats it would ok to do

No.

Re:Get a warrant

[Kohath]

If they can't control the judges then how can they control everyone?

Re:Get a warrant

[Anonymous Coward]

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Once the whole world is bugged and recorded, how will the old thought experiment be perceived then?

Third party recording and retention is but another pork barrel abomination of a boondoggle potentially ripe with corruption. Such information, without a prior justified warrant should not be recorded in any way not related to proper billing and once paid for then all records should be eliminated. Actions of a free person in private or unwitnessed ( i.e. in front of a live person ) public should be such as that question to all other living beings.

Re:Get a warrant

[ganjadude]

I would only be for that IF the person/people who go after the retro warrant are held accountable if they are wrong. I am talking jail time if they collect data with a retro warrant and it turns up with nothing. They should also pay the costs incurred

Re:Get a warrant

[maxwell demon]

I will also add that in cases of immediate threats it would ok to do

No.

He actually added it, so yes, his statement that he will add it was clearly true.

Nothing

[DarkOx]

"I don't want to do anything; I don't plan to much; I don't know how what little I am offering will get done or when" -- Pretty much sums it up.

The interesting thing is, some of the statements Obama made directly contradict the congressional testimony. Is anyone getting charged with perjury this time? Or is CONgress just going to let being lied to go?

Re:Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

They would but they have no standing as there is no reasonable expectation of not-being-bullshitted.

Re:Nothing

[dreamchaser]

No standing? It's illegal to lie to Congress. If you're appearing formally and put under oath (which sometimes is done, sometimes not) and you lie it's called perjury.

Are you shitting me?

[Virtucon]

Mr. Teleprompter who is now costing me another house payment a month because my old plan was not good enough? His bullshit reforms with the NSA don't go nearly far enough and I have no faith that the current leaders (snicker) in congress will make meaningful reform something to debate in the upcoming elections. What his speech and plan amount to is a white wash of the situation and what has to happen is a constitutional amendment to finally put personal privacy rights first and foremost. This country was founded on the principals of liberty with a government by the people and for the people. Right now we have courts that we have no visibility into making decisions appointed by an appointee making decisions with an agency that has a substantial amount of resources at their disposal to undermine our privacy and to corrupt every aspect of our lives. It's not just the NSA but other government agencies we have to worry about, that's the point we have to raise the discussion up a bit higher. On the commercial side of things we have new intrusions daily into our privacy by companies and local governments who don't have our privacy in their plans, everything from license plate scanners to RFID tags we take on our cars and other methods sold for "efficiency of operational need" yet there's not uniform retention or privacy policy governing it. Drive a car, your movements are now being scrutinized on multiple levels. Want to take public transportation? The cameras being installed on streets and in public transportation systems will monitor you along with the open microphone technology, you'll be recorded as well. Add this to facial recognition software and it's not just Facebook you have to worry about, it's every jackbooted cop or DHS Gladys Kravitz snooping on your every movement. Do you need to go to the store? We now have trackers in supermarkets that know what aisle you're on and couple that with your register receipt, they know what you buy all in the name of targeted marketing. Welcome to the new police state folks with our new idiot in chief and his retards in Congress all bobble-heading along the way with the large cadre of contractors and companies making money off of it. Hope you feel safe now.

Re:Are you shitting me?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be clear, DHS and TSA was not created by Mr. Teleprompter. Mr. Teleprompter did not legislate money is free speech. Mr. Teleprompter does not argue "corporations are people". Founding the country with liberty is all right when government is the most powerful institution. It means nothing when the most powerful institutions are corporations that can spend infinite amounts of money to get the candidates that they want, which eventually has gotten them the judiciary they want.

Re:Are you shitting me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paragraphs, use them.

Re:Are you shitting me?

[Bite The Pillow]

You sounded angry. Having vented, do you feel better or no?

Re:Are you shitting me?

[Virtucon]

Not until these fucksticks in DC are all gone, then I'll feel much better. Until then I want stocks set up on the Washington Mall so these capricious folks can get a taste of rotten tomatoes and eggs.

Translation

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck you. Here, take this roofie. We still gonna snoop on you, but you won't care."

That's obvious

[Groo Wanderer]

"Okay, who is this magical third party?"

There is only one entity that could be trusted with the security and sanctity of such a trove, the TSA of course.

            -Charlie

Who's naughty or nice?

[Anonymous Coward]

He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?"

Obviously Santa Claus. He already collects data on children.

His lips are moving

[Tokolosh]

He is a politician.

Connect the dots.

Three words would suffice

[knarf]

In reality three words would suffice when it comes to translating any policitian's words on covert monitoring:

'bridge for sale'

Register's response is good.

[bussdriver]

The main issue that a lot of people are going to have is:
1) They denied everything until Snowden
2) What they fix, they'll deny until the next leaker.

Possibly) What Snowden didn't leak, they will continue to deny and have no need to fix it. Plus there is the "need to know" stuff, some of which POTUS doesn't even know.

Re: Register's response is good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't understand, the only thing they are fixing are the concerns raised by the shit-thrown-into-the-fan leaks.

What the NSA will do is the same , good for them. How they do it will change to make people feel better. Whatever, good for you, it's like talking to people that just just found out there are sometimes bugs in your food.

Obama's Dilema Differed

[Anonymous Coward]

Snowden really did open a can of worms! And this will be in play long after the Nov. 2016 Presidential election.

Here's the problem for Obama and the DNC.

DoJ charged Snowden with theft of Gov. property: NSA operations, practices, procedures, methods and techniques.

The property was classified at Confidential, NOFORN and TOP SECRET.

A DoJ District Court Judge argued that the Federal GOVERNMENT was likely violating the U.S. Constitution, regarding NSA practices (including the above in the DoJ complaint against Snowden).

A second DoJ District Court Judge argued that NSA activities (in the DoJ complaint against Snowden) were:

1) Legal
2) Protected by US Federal Law
3) Anyone can engage in the same activities (communications metadata mining el al.).

Now, with BOTH rulings (one differed on appeal, the other final but likely to be appealed) is the DoJ's complaint VACATED?

Obama Dilema: If NSA doings are legal and DoJ's complaint has no legal basis, then if Obama pardons Snowden, who is Obama really pardoning [?] and why [?] for committing a non-crime?

Its like this:

Two guys are at Grand Central Station toilet stalls.

Guy 1: Hay, I heard that the boss of the DoJ is fucking his daughter.

Guy 2: So what?

Guy 1: He uses a French Tickler.

Guy 2: Hey, you got one of those?

So with all the 'complaints' and 'accusations' and 'incriminations' flying fast, Obama has no place to go but to pass it off to the other guy in the toilet stall.

Ha ha

Stop being so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

All these articles are worded so naively. They're both expecting honesty and good intentions from politicians, and making it sound like a single politician is responsible for it all. If people keep reading articles like this, they'll elect someone else next time and be just as shocked that things turn out even more crap.

Re: Stop being so naive

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like watching people find out what hot dogs are made of and making a big scene.

When you call shenanigans, they try the "well we didn't know before the leaks" bull crap. Hey, I like hot dogs... But what did you people THINK was in them before a bug crawled up your ass about it?

third party will be CLEC/LECs

[WindBourne]

Look, the tech will simply be done on a distributed basis. We will no doubt pay the CLECs/LECs to hold the computers and data and then be able to access it with a warrant. Basically, it will be the same, except that it will costs us 3x what it currently does.

Fox News' reaction

[Anonymous Coward]

NSA is buried on foxnews.com.... two minor stories linked below the fold, nothing from columnists.

Looks good for Obama politically so far. Fox News IS the voice of the national Republican Party.

Instead of a third party?

[Anonymous Coward]

IDCubed idea for an open source trust framework.

make this an issue for the next POTUS election

[Dan667]

If people want to get the NSA reigned in they they should start now making this a big deal for the next election. It does two things. It will make sure the issue does not go away and force it to be an issue for Senate and House elections as well.

Re:make this an issue for the next POTUS election

[NoKaOi]

It was an issue in the election that Obama won in 2008. The problem is that he lied his ass off and wasn't held accountable in 2012, not because Obama was doing a great job but because the other guy would have been 10x worse. I'm sure whoever runs in 2016 will either lie their ass off or figure out a way to make it a non-issue.

Among other lies on the subject:
"That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens. No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient," Obama said in 2007.
Later:
"I take the Constitution very seriously," he said. "The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America."

But either way, this won't be a huge issue in the next election. Ironically, it'll be the things Obama actually did right that the democrats get reamed for, like social services (since that costs money, albeit a teeny tiny fraction of what the wars are costing each year) that help a helluva lot of people,I didn't even know how much good they did until having a conversation with a relative who's a social worker, and healthcare reform (although implementation was half-assed, it is allowing a lot of people get insurance, and in the bigger picture it's a move in the right direction).

Re:make this an issue for the next POTUS election

[Dan667]

don't underestimate the power of a wedge issue.

Freedom's just...

[angularbanjo]

He should have just pulled out a six string and strummed along to Kris Kristofferson. "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose..."

This will be great for India's Economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent said:
"What he says means nothing."

I hope not! From the front page:
"He's promising bulk data will go to a third party so the NSA can't see it. Okay, who is this magical third party?""
I don't know, but I know it will be in India where we have no money but lots of free software (like Windows XP and Vista and 7; nobody here is bothering to crack Windows 8 because there is no esteem in accomplishing something that nobody appreciates: like Windows 8).

But yes our U.S. allies can count on us Indian guys to snoop through your phone messages and Instagram perversions. Since we do this anyway (everybody down here is unemployed except for Hackers, Crackers, Child Prostitutes and call centre customer service representatives with accent training in all dialects of American English, including but not limited to Bronx-speak, Southern-drawl, and California-Hip). So, since we've got so much free time over here (being unemployed and all), and being over-educated (us higher-caste people that is), we amuse ourselves by spying on Western people for fun through the Internet, and a wise old Buddhist once said your work should be your passion and your hobby. So yeah most Indian guys fit the Human Resources profile for the perfect NSA employee: trustworthy, snoopy, curious, socially-awkward, over-educated and brown, or at least brown on the inside where it counts.

We look forward to snooping through your email, reading your Kik messages, looking at your Snap-chat pictures (you American parents need to keep a handle on your teenage daughters, and you American wives need to keep a handle on your American husbands! I know; we've seen it all!), and listening to your phone-calls. God Bless America! The Land of Opportunity (for East Asians).

Re:This will be great for India's Economy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you people stopped shitting upstream from where you drink yet?

Who will be the 3rd Party

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Blackwater is looking for work!

That interpretor's language is not Turing Complete

[VortexCortex]

What good is a lexical translator if the output doesn't compile? We've been incrementally compiling the language of ++BS (doubleplus bullshit) for quite a while, so let's just run what we've got now and see if there are any obvious errors.

The FBI and NSA have now both been tasked with maintaining "national security": This means maintaining the political, and socio-economic status quo despite the will of the people. It's a fact they have a long history of acting to silence civil rights activism, anti-war activism, and other activist groups. They claimed to stop the practice, but the NSA has now admitted it still entertains the idea of discrediting "radicals", via exposing porn habits, etc. Under the state secret label of "national security" they FBI and NSA won't have to worry about pesky FOIA requests revealing their programs like they did in the past, and can delegate enforcement to the state police agency: DHS. It doesn't matter where the data is stored online, or how encrypted it is, the NSA can and will get at it via exploits., so Obama is free to promise the moon and stars. Not like oversight ever stopped them from blatant constitutional violations before.

Here is a documentary / book presenting facts which can be easily verified in an attempt explain the practice of Disaster Capitalism. The gist is that through application of social, political and economic shock therapy you can bend the will of the people to your design and siphon a lot of wealth up into the upper echelon of private business. It's also a great way to force the privatization of public resources for corporate benefit. Anyone who objects or holds counter economic views is labelled a "radical extremist" of a "dangerous ideology" and rounded up in prison camps as examples of what happens if you disagree. The bogeyman of Communism or Marxism or Terrorism, etc. is thereby leveraged.

Warning: Cognitive Dissonance Detected.
    Assumption of inherent benign governance illogical: More evidence for Null Hypothesis against this stance exists.

This article examines the Pentagon's preparation to implement the round-up of those having "radical ideologies" in the wake of a Disaster Capitalism event, (essentially following the predicitons and warnings of the prior linked documentary) and explains how the PRISM system is apparently connected to it.

Error: Expected Event "Future" not found.
    Democratic Republic execution model is not consistent with economic ruin and despotism.

So, there we have it. It would be crazy to think anyone could benefit through economic ruin, so everything's probably OK. It seems our government is just run at the behest of rich corporations, and is wearing tinfoil hats in preparation of ensuring our continued acquiescence just in case they're ever able to strip more power from the people than is bearable. However, it's probably nothing to worry about unless they plan to let some "unforseen disaster" happen, like a Stock Market Crash, Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Energy Crisis, etc. or our ability to influence the government via the democratic vote has been hacked.

TL;DR: Obama's Promises are merely legitimization and fulfilment of The Nightmare Eisenhower Tried to Warn Us About.

This just in

[tpstigers]

we can't trust our government.

We should learn from Obama's lies

[Taco Cowboy]

Why would you bother parsing what he said word by word. He lies, period. What he says means nothing.

I respectfully disagree.

Obama is not the first president of the United States, and I hope that he is not the last one either.

Similarly, Obama is not the first president of the United States who was caught lying.

What I am saying is, we should learn from Obama's lies.

We should learn a lesson on how the POTUS lies, what kind of lies POTUS utters, under which circumstance(s) and what kind of benefit the POTUS reaps with his/her lies.

We should learn that because it would benefit us, the people, to better recognize lies from this and all future POTUS.

It is our duty, as citizens of the United States of America, to keep our nation in order. If the POTUS wants to lie, it falls to us to make sure that the POTUS' lies won't put our nation in jeopardy.

The fox building the hen house

[Anonymous Coward]

What got me was the announcement that John Podesta (Clipper chip) would be heading the Government review panel on privacy. Excuse me? The man who wanted to build in Big Brother to all electronic communications is going to review our privacy. I'd say that it was something out of the Onion, but apparently, it's serious. Wired

  Cynic - The back doors won't need to be slipped in under the covers, they'll be mandated by Government policy, "to help preserve our privacy"

Someone save us from the people who are supposed to "help us"

AC == CF?

[s.petry]

I think you are arguing Cold Fjord. Same broken logic, false analogies, red herrings, and plain old lies, and he has not been seen yet in this thread. Looks like he gave up on his own account, probably due to his karma dropping so low.

You know what's more funnier?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just waiting for another 9-11 type of attack, which I predict will happen again fairly soon possibly in couple of years if people keep pushing for their freedom too much... guess what'll happen shortly after that?

"OMG save us government!!"... "WE NEED MORE SECURITY!!!"... "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

Rinse and fucking repeat. Americans are nothing but a predictable bunch.

In song form:

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEFKFiXSx4

Important Questions for Future Consideration...

[flyneye]

How can anyone EVER believe ANYTHING the government says EVER AGAIN?!!
How many tin foil hats out there are really JUSTIFIED?
How long till the shit hits the fan?

Third Party Metadata Center

[Anonymousekiteer]

so the third party will keep the bulk data and not NSA? Wow! That really is a stroke of penius.... err...I mean genius!!

Re:That interpretor's language is not Turing Compl

[TangoMargarine]

Imagine the United States as a unicorn--pure, innocent, all that whatnot. Now the corporations are hunters who are hunting the unicorn. The problem of course, is that in a one-on-one fight with a unicorn, they're going to get gored all to hell. So they set a trap, immobilize the unicorn, stab it up and collect all its magical blood, then run away before the unicorn explodes and sell the magical blood.

Everybody knows that unicorns explode when they die, right? They do.

What I love is how little you all realize

[WillAffleckUW]

We've been spying on you since at least the 70s, and it's only accelerated since 2000.

Everything else is just sound and fury, signifying no real change, other than a lack of privacy.